Obama supports Mosque near ground zero...

[admiralsnackbar]

I guess by the logic of the idiot right wingers in this thread, Christians shouldn't be able to build a Church near the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City since Timothy McVeigh was a Christian.

Buh buh but he wasn't a real Christian. Whereas terrorists and Abdul 6-pack are interchangeable cogs in a great invisible war machine. See? Totally different.

[Goran Dragic]

What do you think the result would be?
I think we both know the answer, however I wouldn't be surprised if you were still a supporter of segregation. The point is, Americans let their emotion reaction get in the way of what is/isn't constitutional, it happens all the time.

[admiralsnackbar]

What is lost in this is all the survey's by muslims in america who say they never experience religious intolerance as compared to most European muslims who do.

So that allows us to discriminate just this once? C'mon, man -- this is America. Denying people basic freedoms because they (the people) are unpopular isn't what we're about.

[CosmicCowboy]

BTW, I could give a fuck if they build it there or not. I just like to blow holes in y'alls weak ass "progressive" arguments.

[admiralsnackbar]

Cute, but you analogy doesn't withstand scrutiny.

McVeigh did not martyr himself and kill those people in the name of Christianity. He was just a sick fuck.

Next?

And the terrorists who flew into the buildings weren't sick fucks? C'mon, man -- you're smarter than this.

[Goran Dragic]

And what people don't realize is how much this crap probably fuels the terrorist movement in the Middle East. Does anyone think about how much easier it will be for Al Queda to recruit Islamic young adults when they can point to an example of America trying to stop Muslims from practicing their religion?

[admiralsnackbar]

BTW, I could give a fuck if they build it there or not. I just like to blow holes in y'alls weak ass "progressive" arguments.

When is it progressive to uphold the constitution?

[CosmicCowboy]

And the terrorists who flew into the buildings weren't sick fucks? C'mon, man -- you're smarter than this.

They were true believers that did it in the name of their religious faith.

Apples/Oranges

[CosmicCowboy]

When is it progressive to uphold the constitution?

Are you implying that conservatives DON'T want to uphold the constitution?

Major fail.

NO ONE is saying building the mosque is not constitutional dumb fuck.

[DMX7]

NO ONE is saying building the mosque is not constitutional dumb fuck.

Conversely, what democrats are saying it's the smart and sensitive thing to do?

[admiralsnackbar]

They were true believers that did it in the name of their religious faith.

Apples/Oranges

McVeigh zealously believed in racist fascism and Christian Identity doctrine, and he came from a culture/society of like-minded people -- his inspiration (The Turner Diaries) was a how-to on cell terrorism. The only difference is that most Nazis and the like in this country are (mercifully) craven pussies who rarely display the courage for their conventions (see: National Alliance), so it's more apples to apples than you know or care to know, I think.

[Goran Dragic]

Cute, but you analogy doesn't withstand scrutiny.

McVeigh did not martyr himself and kill those people in the name of Christianity. He was just a sick fuck.

Next?

Wrong. McVeigh used Christianity to fuel his extremist, White Supremacist beliefs just like Al Queda uses the Islamic religion to fuel their extremist, Islamic supremacist beliefs. McVeigh wasn't just a random idiot who decided to blow up a building and kill people because he thought it was cool. The OKC bombing was McVeigh's way of "retaliating" for the 1993 Waco Siege.

[spursncowboys]

Way to dodge the fact it's based off the same logic you're brainwashed self is using in this thread.
There was no facts in your nonsense. Mcveigh didn't go to a Christian church that preached hate and violence.
Jesus didn't go around different tribes and make deals to violently attack others and instill their religion.
A large portion of the Christian religion in all it's denominations do not condone, or stay silent, genocide.
Going by all of Jesus's teachings, you could conclude that Mcveigh was a christian in name only. There is no evidence that he was a diciple of christ when he started his terrorism.
IMO I think if they want to build a community center near the WTC-fine. And if the Imam's preaching incite violence on others than he should be imprisoned.

This is a typical knee-jerk response from someone who listens intently to their marxist professor without doing their own homework on their nonsense.

[CosmicCowboy]

And what people don't realize is how much this crap probably fuels the terrorist movement in the Middle East. Does anyone think about how much easier it will be for Al Queda to recruit Islamic young adults when they can point to an example of America trying to stop Muslims from practicing their religion?

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Al Queda has plenty of other arguments to use in recruitment.

Considering the intolerance of infidels inherent in their faith I seriously doubt that having deep conversations about religious tolerance in the US is high on their list of recruitment tools.

[spursncowboys]

So that allows us to discriminate just this once? C'mon, man -- this is America. Denying people basic freedoms because they (the people) are unpopular isn't what we're about.
No. Just that we are a tolerant country. I think this has less to do with religion and more to do with american symbolism as to why most americans don't want a mosque that close to wtc.

[DMX7]

Considering the intolerance of infidels inherent in their faith

:lmao

Can you think of any other religions that are intolerant? :lol

[Goran Dragic]

There was no facts in your nonsense. Mcveigh didn't go to a Christian church that preached hate and violence.
White Supremacists consider themselves Christians.


Jesus didn't go around different tribes and make deals to violently attack others and instill their religion.
And Muhammad did?


A large portion of the Christian religion in all it's denominations do not condone, or stay silent, genocide.
And the Koran condones violence?



Going by all of Jesus's teachings, you could conclude that Mcveigh was a christian in name only. There is no evidence that he was a diciple of christ when he started his terrorism.
And going by the 5 pillars of Islam, you could conclude Al Queda is only an Islamic organization by name.


IMO I think if they want to build a community center near the WTC-fine. And if the Imam's preaching incite violence on others than he should be imprisoned.
And I agree, but if it's a normal Muslim center, it won't incite violence. The people who blew up the trade centers weren't mainstream Muslims, they were Muslim extremists, just like Timothy McVeigh was a Christian extremist.


This is a typical knee-jerk response from someone who listens intently to their marxist professor without doing their own homework on their nonsense.
:lmao my marxist professor? Is college the devil or something?

[spursncowboys]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Al Queda has plenty of other arguments to use in recruitment.

Considering the intolerance of infidels inherent in their faith I seriously doubt that having deep conversations about religious tolerance in the US is high on their list of recruitment tools.
I find this funny too. If they didn't have a reason yet I doubt this will push them over the ledge.

[CosmicCowboy]

Wrong. McVeigh used Christianity to fuel his extremist, White Supremacist beliefs just like Al Queda uses the Islamic religion to fuel their extremist, Islamic supremacist beliefs. McVeigh wasn't just a random idiot who decided to blow up a building and kill people because he thought it was cool. The OKC bombing was McVeigh's way of "retaliating" for the 1993 Waco Siege.

White Supremacy beliefs are inherently unchristian.

Next.

[Goran Dragic]

Considering the intolerance of infidels inherent in their faith
Why is it you act like all Muslims are "intolerant of infidels" as if they're all nutjob terrorists. Most Muslims are peaceful people.

[Goran Dragic]

White Supremacy beliefs are inherently unchristian.

Next.
Al Queda beliefs are inherently unIslamic. Nowhere in the Koran or the 5 pillars of Islam does it say to commit violent acts against the infidels.

[admiralsnackbar]

Are you implying that conservatives DON'T want to uphold the constitution?

Major fail.

NO ONE is saying building the mosque is not constitutional dumb fuck.

Dumb fuck? :lol Eat a dick, tough guy -- I've been nothing but civil to you.

As for constitutionality... people are trying to impede the construction of mosque for what amount to aesthetic reasons. The land is paid for, the plans are in place, and yet some misguided douchebags are trying to intercede on what amount to aesthetic grounds. That isn't constitutionally sanctioned, now, is it? So this whole hoopla (besides being primarily political opera leading up to the mid-terms) is, ultimately hypocritical xenophobia from a country that is composed of aliens, and this hypocrisy -- while constitutionally protected in itself -- has, as it's end, an unconstitutional goal.

As for your assumption that I'm pinning this idiotic behavior on conservatives... it's just an assumption, genius.

[CosmicCowboy]

OK, GD, I get you now. Muslims good, Christians bad.

I respect your constitutional right to advocate that.

[Goran Dragic]

I'm not saying Timothy McVeigh was a true Christian or anything. Timothy McVeigh twisted and contorted Christian beliefs to justify blowing up a building by convincing himself god wanted him to do so. Al Queda uses Islam to brainwash young adults and convince them Allah wants them to commit terrorist acts against the "infidels". Most Muslims hate being associated with organizations like Al Queda as much as Christians hate being associated with organizations like the KKK or with people like McVeigh.

[leemajors]

There was no facts in your nonsense. Mcveigh didn't go to a Christian church that preached hate and violence.
Jesus didn't go around different tribes and make deals to violently attack others and instill their religion.
A large portion of the Christian religion in all it's denominations do not condone, or stay silent, genocide.
Going by all of Jesus's teachings, you could conclude that Mcveigh was a christian in name only. There is no evidence that he was a diciple of christ when he started his terrorism.
IMO I think if they want to build a community center near the WTC-fine. And if the Imam's preaching incite violence on others than he should be imprisoned.

This is a typical knee-jerk response from someone who listens intently to their marxist professor without doing their own homework on their nonsense.

Jesus didn't, but Christians have done far more than their fair share of it, repeatedly. They just apologize later so it's ok.

[Goran Dragic]

OK, GD, I get you now. Muslims good, Christians bad.

I respect your constitutional right to advocate that.
I never said Christians were bad but way to resort to a strawman.

[CosmicCowboy]

Dumb fuck? :lol Eat a dick, tough guy -- I've been nothing but civil to you.

As for constitutionality... people are trying to impede the construction of mosque for what amount to aesthetic reasons. The land is paid for, the plans are in place, and yet some misguided douchebags are trying to intercede on what amount to aesthetic grounds. That isn't constitutionally sanctioned, now, is it? So this whole hoopla (besides being primarily political opera leading up to the mid-terms) is, ultimately hypocritical xenophobia from a country that is composed of aliens, and this hypocrisy -- while constitutionally protected in itself -- has, as it's end, an unconstitutional goal.

As for your assumption that I'm pinning this idiotic behavior on conservatives... it's just an assumption, genius.

This is an emotional issue that is dividing EVERYONE from all parts of the political spectrum.

The fact that it is legal and constitutional does not automatically make it right. I could give you endless examples of things that are technically constitutional but in terribly bad taste. Building a monument commemorating the exploits of Adolph Hitler at the exit to the Holocaust Museum would be legal and constitutional but that doesn't make it right.

[admiralsnackbar]

This is an emotional issue that is dividing EVERYONE from all parts of the political spectrum.

The fact that it is legal and constitutional does not automatically make it right. I could give you endless examples of things that are technically constitutional but in terribly bad taste. Building a monument commemorating the exploits of Adolph Hitler at the exit to the Holocaust Museum would be legal and constitutional but that doesn't make it right.

So we agree. Super.

[Goran Dragic]

This is an emotional issue
Exactly, it's an emotional issue that's making people forget about upholding first amendment rights. Civil rights were an emotional issue that had the same effect. That's why it's up to people like the president and supreme court justices to put emotion/what most Americans feel aside and interpret the constitution on their own.

[spursncowboys]

I never said Christians were bad but way to resort to a strawman.
while you posted that most muslims are peaceful, as if you surveyed all them and have 0% MOE. Oh that's right you saw it on the news.

[spursncowboys]

Goran: have you read the koran?

[CosmicCowboy]

So we agree. Super.

Which again brings up the quote from our President:


But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.

Obama apparently doesn't agree with us. He had the pulpit at the Ishtar Dinner with what one would assume were leading Islamic thinkers/clerics in the US. It seemed like the perfect opportunity to express that it was perfectly legal and constitutional but also highly controversial and potentially divisive and question the wisdom of the decision to build it there.

[LnGrrrR]

A large portion of the Christian religion in all it's denominations do not condone, or stay silent, genocide.


Lots seem to condone "advanced interrogation" though...

[spursncowboys]

White Supremacists consider themselves Christians.


And Muhammad did? are you saying he didn't or you don't know?



And the Koran condones violence? Are you telling me it doesn't or do you not know?






And I agree, but if it's a normal Muslim center, it won't incite violence. The people who blew up the trade centers weren't mainstream Muslims, they were Muslim extremists, just like Timothy McVeigh was a Christian extremist.
Have you read the Imam's quotes? Some of them are pretty bad. Also he still doesn't explain where he will get 20 million plus to fund this. The finance is a basic thing that all buildings have to explain. Why do the muslim church not have to?


:lmao my marxist professor? Is college the devil or something?
No going to an accounting class and on day one the professor asks who voted for bush is perfectly acceptable. I don't mind the dialect and even the douch bag professors playing devil's advocate. I hate the kids who took what they said and lazily repeated it like it was fact.

[Goran Dragic]

Goran: have you read the koran?
Parts of it. Have you?

[DarrinS]

I guess by the logic of the idiot right wingers in this thread, Christians shouldn't be able to build a Church near the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City since Timothy McVeigh was a Christian.


Why do libtards continue to spout this dumbass comparison?

McVeigh was anti-govt -- he was especially enraged by the Waco siege.

He was NOT motivated by some twisted form of Christianity.


Get it? Got it? Good.

[CosmicCowboy]

Exactly, it's an emotional issue that's making people forget about upholding first amendment rights. Civil rights were an emotional issue that had the same effect. That's why it's up to people like the president and supreme court justices to put emotion/what most Americans feel aside and interpret the constitution on their own.

It is still within my constitutional right to burn crosses and hang blacks in effigy but that doesn't make it right.

Any more analogies you want to throw out there to justify your righteous cause?

[DarrinS]

Exactly, it's an emotional issue that's making people forget about upholding first amendment rights. Civil rights were an emotional issue that had the same effect. That's why it's up to people like the president and supreme court justices to put emotion/what most Americans feel aside and interpret the constitution on their own.


No one denies this is a moral argument. That's why something like 70% of people polled think it's WRONG to build the mosque there, but 70% think they have the RIGHT to build it there.

[admiralsnackbar]

Which again brings up the quote from our President:



Obama apparently doesn't agree with us. He had the pulpit at the Ishtar Dinner with what one would assume were leading Islamic thinkers/clerics in the US. It seemed like the perfect opportunity to express that it was perfectly legal and constitutional but also highly controversial and potentially divisive and question the wisdom of the decision to build it there.

His job as a leader isn't to kowtow to peoples hypocrisies, but to appeal to our better angels, so to speak.

Too bad he doesn't stand up for other things that matter, but that's for other threads to discuss.

And just because I understand where the controversy may be coming from doesn't mean I agree with it.

[spursncowboys]

Parts of it. Have you?
No but parts of it as well.

[LnGrrrR]

while you posted that most muslims are peaceful, as if you surveyed all them and have 0% MOE. Oh that's right you saw it on the news.

Are you insinuating that most Muslims AREN'T peaceful?

[spursncowboys]

So all the liberals are against eminent domain? Or that it is unconstitutional?

[admiralsnackbar]

No but parts of it as well.

Have you read Matthew 10:34?

[Goran Dragic]

are you saying he didn't or you don't know?
It was a rhetorical question.



Are you telling me it doesn't or do you not know?
It was a rhetorical question.



Have you read the Imam's quotes? Some of them are pretty bad. Also he still doesn't explain where he will get 20 million plus to fund this. The finance is a basic thing that all buildings have to explain. Why do the muslim church not have to?
They have to get construction plans approved by the city, but assuming he's using a private contractor to build it, he doesn't have to show "where" he can get the financing. Most likely the contractor will want proof he's able to finance it, but he's under no obligation to account for where the financing comes from.

[ChumpDumper]

The man at the very end of the video eloquently expresses the mission statement of Park 51 community center (a.k.a. Cordoba House)Extreme fail, Darrin.

[admiralsnackbar]

So all the liberals are against eminent domain? Or that it is unconstitutional?

What exactly would the domain be eminent for? Is the NY governor going to build a business spur into the financial district?

[spursncowboys]

Are you insinuating that most Muslims AREN'T peaceful?
No. Their culture, as you probably know, is so different than ours that to ask if they are peaceful to our standards probably doesn't work.

[Goran Dragic]

It is still within my constitutional right to burn crosses and hang blacks
Really? You have a constitutional right to hang black people?

[ChumpDumper]

Have you read the Imam's quotes? Some of them are pretty bad.Which ones?

How bad?


Also he still doesn't explain where he will get 20 million plus to fund this. The finance is a basic thing that all buildings have to explain. Why do the muslim church not have to?Show me the law where "all buildings have to explain" their financing, and the exception for Muslim "churches."

[spursncowboys]

Have you read Matthew 10:34?
That has nothing to do with bringing violence on others. The two most important of the commandments were...

[CosmicCowboy]

Really? You have a constitutional right to hang black people?

Way to deliberately misquote me asshole. Do you think you are cute?

I said hang blacks in effigy which you deliberately clipped off.

Do you not know what the word means?

[Goran Dragic]

.

[DMX7]

I said hang blacks in effigy which you deliberately clipped off.


It sure is... It sure is. :lol

[spursncowboys]

Exactly, it's an emotional issue that's making people forget about upholding first amendment rights. Civil rights were an emotional issue that had the same effect. That's why it's up to people like the president and supreme court justices to put emotion/what most Americans feel aside and interpret the constitution on their own.
what does the first amendment have to do with this?

[CosmicCowboy]

The original quote:


It is still within my constitutional right to burn crosses and hang blacks in effigy but that doesn't make it right.

[Goran Dragic]

what does the first amendment have to do with this?
Seriously?

[admiralsnackbar]

That has nothing to do with bringing violence on others. The two most important of the commandments were...

And you only know that because you've spent time with Christianity and have interpreted it to essentially be a doctrine of love and forgiveness. But just as some Christians don't interpret Matt 10:34 the way you do, some people interpret the Quaran to justify violence. If the majority of the Muslim world really believes in killing infidels whenever possible, why is the majority of the Muslim world peaceful? You do realize that Muslims basically live by the Decalogue (http://www.islam101.com/religions/TenCommandments/tcQuran.htm), don't you?

[ChumpDumper]

SnC: I still need to see the Imam's "bad quotes" and the laws exempting Muslims from revealing the financing of the construction of their "churches."

[Goran Dragic]

SnC: I still need to see the Imam's "bad quotes" and the laws exempting Muslims from revealing the financing of the construction of their "churches."
Or that laws that require everyone else to explain where they get the financing from.

[CosmicCowboy]

what does the first amendment have to do with this?

I think he is trying to say that the first amendment rights of the Islamic Cleric that wants to build the mosque are not in question.

The real issue is whether it is an appropriate location considering the emotional provocation of that specific location.

At least, I hope thats what he is saying...:lol

[Goran Dragic]

The real issue is whether it is an appropriate location considering the emotional provocation of that specific location.
That's not an issue with me. If people are too ignorant to educate themselves about what the true beliefs and morals of the Muslim religion are and instead judge Muslim based off what some extremist terrorists do, therefore having animosity towards them, we shouldn't make it the problem of innocent Muslims who are trying to build a community center.

[CosmicCowboy]

That's not an issue with me. If people are too ignorant to educate themselves about what the true beliefs and morals of the Muslim religion are and instead judge Muslim based off what some extremist terrorists do, therefore having animosity towards them, we shouldn't make it the problem of innocent Muslims who are trying to build a community center.

:lmao

I think you are really stretching the definition of "innocent" when discussing this specific cleric. From previous quotes (his) it could be a reasonable assumption that the specific location was chosen exactly because it WAS a provocative location. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to assume ignorance just because they disagree with you on this issue.

[admiralsnackbar]

That's not an issue with me. If people are too ignorant to educate themselves about what the true beliefs and morals of the Muslim religion are and instead judge Muslim based off what some extremist terrorists do, therefore having animosity towards them, we shouldn't make it the problem of innocent Muslims who are trying to build a community center geared towards offering a moderate version of Islam to compete with more conservative, un-American strains because you win ideological conflicts via "hearts and minds," not bombs (see Stalinism).

Fixed.

[admiralsnackbar]

:lmao

I think you are really stretching the definition of "innocent" when discussing this specific cleric. From previous quotes (his) it could be a reasonable assumption that the specific location was chosen exactly because it WAS a provocative location. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to assume ignorance just because they disagree with you on this issue.

If you're fighting for hearts and minds, the first thing you want to do is put yourself on the moral high ground. Forgiveness is a good example of this.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

I think you are really stretching the definition of "innocent" when discussing this specific cleric. From previous quotes (his) it could be a reasonable assumption that the specific location was chosen exactly because it WAS a provocative location. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to assume ignorance just because they disagree with you on this issue.Everyone keeps mentioning these quotes. The only one I've really seen is the one about US foreign policy's role in 9/11, and I could probably find a clip of Glenn Beck saying exactly the same thing.

What are the other quotes?

[DMX7]

There were mosques by the World Trade Center before it became Ground Zero.

[ChumpDumper]

There were mosques by the World Trade Center before it became Ground Zero.Yeah, and look what happened![/PalinGingrichDarrinS]

[admiralsnackbar]

There were mosques by the World Trade Center before it became Ground Zero.

Not to mention this. (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/08/am-i-the-only-person-in-the-world-who-remembers-that-the-world-trade-center-was-a-work-of-islamic-ar.html)

[Ignignokt]

That's not an issue with me. If people are too ignorant to educate themselves about what the true beliefs and morals of the Muslim religion are and instead judge Muslim based off what some extremist terrorists do, therefore having animosity towards them, we shouldn't make it the problem of innocent Muslims who are trying to build a community center.

Honestly, this post has only half it's basis on reality. It's correct to say that it is unjust to pin the blame on all muslims for the acts of a few. Each muslim chooses how much the koran should be applied to his life. Therefore as much as muslims are Islamist, they are also human beings in that they have free will to practice atleast in their minds his choice of the truth of the book.

The truth is the koran is the source of Islam. So your implication that the Muslim religion is that of peace is wrong.

You're right, anyone can interpret a religous decree to his liking, just like one can do to the bible. But that is not to say that there is an OBJECTIVE truth of that interpretation, or should i say ABSOLUTE.

When the writers of these religous decrees penned their writings they had an absolute and objective message of what they wanted to say. They didn't write them with the intention of being interpreted in 300 different ways. They had an ORIGINAL INTENT.

The truth is that Mohammed the prophet spread his religion through force, and that Islam has a philosophy intended for earthly dominion. It's methods of expanding it's message are known throughout the muslim world and that's why when Arabs and muslims saw the images of 911, a significant plurality saw it through righteous lens.

Islam is not a religion of peace, it's inception was not peace, it's expansion was done through coercion. And i'm not talking about centuries later after it's original writer passed. I'm saying that Mohammed himself spread Islam through coercion and submission, therefore he did give political Jihad sanction through his own writings and actions.

To say that Islam is a religion of peace is the greatest lie that has existed in this century. Muslims can be peaceful. Their document and religion is not.

[Ignignokt]

Not to mention this. (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/08/am-i-the-only-person-in-the-world-who-remembers-that-the-world-trade-center-was-a-work-of-islamic-ar.html)

Stupid.

Is there christian architecture?

Is there Jehovahs witness architecture.

That architecture is more arabic and north african than mohammed. Did mohammed set forth a treatise on muslim architecture? lol!

[CosmicCowboy]

We can quibble all day about whether his quotes about Osama Bin Laden being "made in the USA" or quotes about implementing Sharia law in democracies, or quotes about not believing in religious dialogue are relevant.

I propose that if his REAL GOAL is to build a "bridge" between moderate Islam and the US then a good first step would be to choose a less inflammatory site for his community center.

How can you even argue that point?

[admiralsnackbar]

You make your point well, Ig, but you assume that original intent matters (and that it can be known), when only present intent does. If a majority of Muslims have embraced the message of peace in Islam in the present, how is that different than a majority of Christians embracing a bellicose interpretation during the Inquisition and Crusades? Ultimately people believe what they want to believe and bend their ideological strictures accordingly.

Insofar as I can pretend to understand human nature, when people are angry or frightened, they'll allow themselves to be sucked into a more defensive and antagonistic ideological framework. When they aren't, they're much more charitable and open-minded to "the other."

[ChumpDumper]

We can quibble all day about whether his quotes about Osama Bin Laden being "made in the USA" or quotes about implementing Sharia law in democracies, or quotes about not believing in religious dialogue are relevant.

I propose that if his REAL GOAL is to build a "bridge" between moderate Islam and the US then a good first step would be to choose a less inflammatory site for his community center.

How can you even argue that point?Why is it automatically inflammatory?

Because it is now a political issue.

Nobody gave a shit about this when it was first announced. Commentators on Fox News were citing it as a positive development. Only when the "right" people decided to make it a wedge issue and started spreading panic about the quotes you are mentioning did this become the burning issue of the day. I understand many people have feelings, but I can't help but think most of the outrage here is manufactured from focus groups. America is a pool of gullible suckers.

[Ignignokt]

You make your point well, Ig, but you assume that original intent matters (and that it can be known), when only present intent does. If a majority of Muslims have embraced the message of peace in Islam in the present, how is that different than a majority of Christians embracing a bellicose interpretation during the Inquisition and Crusades? Ultimately people believe what they want to believe and bend their ideological strictures accordingly.

Insofar as I can pretend to understand human nature, when people are angry or frightened, they'll allow themselves to be sucked into a more defensive and antagonistic ideological framework. When they aren't, they're much more charitable and open-minded to "the other."

Those events are after the fact of the bible and are political. If a christian bangs a whore and peed on her dead eye socket, would that be a biblical source for interpretation.

I don't see anywhere where the crusades or inqusition are in Jesus's and the epistles writing.

[DMX7]

If a christian bangs a whore and peed on her dead eye socket, would that be a biblical source for interpretation.


lol what?

[admiralsnackbar]

Stupid.

Is there christian architecture?



Seriously? I don't doubt I'm stupid, but most architectural movements in early history were motivated primarily by faith. Jehova's Witnesses haven't ever been a large/powerful enough group to develop an architecture (plus, I expect they'd be too pious to build anything showy), but Catholics, Mormons, and Lutherans are three Christian denominations that all have specific architectures associated with them which spring from the tenets of their faith. Similarly, Byzantine architecture was an expression of Islam during it's equivalent to the Renaissance. The phrase "god is in the details," is attributed to Byzantine architects.

[spursncowboys]

Honestly, this post has only half it's basis on reality. It's correct to say that it is unjust to pin the blame on all muslims for the acts of a few. Each muslim chooses how much the koran should be applied to his life. Therefore as much as muslims are Islamist, they are also human beings in that they have free will to practice atleast in their minds his choice of the truth of the book.

The truth is the koran is the source of Islam. So your implication that the Muslim religion is that of peace is wrong.

You're right, anyone can interpret a religous decree to his liking, just like one can do to the bible. But that is not to say that there is an OBJECTIVE truth of that interpretation, or should i say ABSOLUTE.

When the writers of these religous decrees penned their writings they had an absolute and objective message of what they wanted to say. They didn't write them with the intention of being interpreted in 300 different ways. They had an ORIGINAL INTENT.

The truth is that Mohammed the prophet spread his religion through force, and that Islam has a philosophy intended for earthly dominion. It's methods of expanding it's message are known throughout the muslim world and that's why when Arabs and muslims saw the images of 911, a significant plurality saw it through righteous lens.

Islam is not a religion of peace, it's inception was not peace, it's expansion was done through coercion. And i'm not talking about centuries later after it's original writer passed. I'm saying that Mohammed himself spread Islam through coercion and submission, therefore he did give political Jihad sanction through his own writings and actions.

To say that Islam is a religion of peace is the greatest lie that has existed in this century. Muslims can be peaceful. Their document and religion is not.
well put

[Ignignokt]

You make your point well, Ig, but you assume that original intent matters (and that it can be known), when only present intent does. If a majority of Muslims have embraced the message of peace in Islam in the present, how is that different than a majority of Christians embracing a bellicose interpretation during the Inquisition and Crusades? Ultimately people believe what they want to believe and bend their ideological strictures accordingly.

Insofar as I can pretend to understand human nature, when people are angry or frightened, they'll allow themselves to be sucked into a more defensive and antagonistic ideological framework. When they aren't, they're much more charitable and open-minded to "the other."

What is interpreted today through expedience doesn't matter. The interpretation changes but the intent doesn't. So long as the document remains the same with the same original intent, and so long as these people hold this document as truth, we will see violence perpetrated under it's authority.

Mohammed was peaceful in the book when he was prospering and then turned violent when he couldn't have it his way.

Islam at it's root is evil.

[admiralsnackbar]

Those events are after the fact of the bible and are political. If a christian bangs a whore and peed on her dead eye socket, would that be a biblical source for interpretation.

I don't see anywhere where the crusades or inqusition are in Jesus's and the epistles writing.

And I don't see by what authority you can argue that you know the true intent of the Quaran's writers. Figurative language was MUCH more prominent in the ancient world than it is now -- read some Plato, Homer, Virgil, Vedas, etc, etc, etc, if you need proof.

[Ignignokt]

Seriously? I don't doubt I'm stupid, but most architectural movements in early history were motivated primarily by faith. Jehova's Witnesses haven't ever been a large/powerful enough group to develop an architecture (plus, I expect they'd be too pious to build anything showy), but Catholics, Mormons, and Lutherans are three Christian denominations that all have specific architectures associated with them which spring from the tenets of their faith. Similarly, Byzantine architecture was an expression of Islam during it's equivalent to the Renaissance. The phrase "god is in the details," is attributed to Byzantine architects.

lol.

I'm not saying you are. Just that it's a stupid point.

[Ignignokt]

And I don't see by what authority you can argue that you know the true intent of the Quaran's writers. Figurative language was MUCH more prominent in the ancient world than it is now -- read some Plato, Homer, Virgil, Vedas, etc, etc, etc, if you need proof.

I don't have to be. Mohammeds writings and his actions are proof enough, enough proof that the institutional scholars with long traditions and establishment believe in the enslavement of infidels.

Why should i take an adherent's POV who can choose and ignore it's tenets because of our free society, who lives far away from islam's practical implementations as more authoritive than the one who lives it and follows it's traditions?

Those who have chosen to follow that religion and coexist with a humanistic philosophy are living contradictions.

Islam and liberal humanism are opposites.

[admiralsnackbar]

lol.

I'm not saying you are. Just that it's a stupid point.

As opposed to the wealth of insightful, persuasive posting that's going on up in heah :lol

[admiralsnackbar]

I don't have to be. Mohammeds writings and his actions are proof enough, enough proof that the institutional scholars with long traditions and establishment believe in the enslavement of infidels.

Why should i take an adherent's POV who can choose and ignore it's tenets because of our free society, who lives far away from islam's practical implementations as more authoritive than the one who lives it and follows it's traditions?

Those who have chosen to follow that religion and coexist with a humanistic philosophy are living contradictions.

Islam and liberal humanism are opposites.

Institutional scholarship changes over time just as people and cultures at large do. Is casuistry a permissible doctrinal position these days? No? That's funny... it was during the Enlightenment.

[Ignignokt]

As opposed to the wealth of insightful, persuasive posting that's going on up in heah :lol

I wont argue that.

But islamic architecture has appeared in Catholic churches in the New world. Does that mean that they sanction islam?

[Ignignokt]

Heck, fags have Pointed arches in some of their McMansions to give their place a colonial look, does that mean that they accept the tenets of Islam?

[Ignignokt]

Institutional scholarship changes over time just as people and cultures at large do. Is casuistry a permissible doctrinal position these days? No? That's funny... it was during the Enlightenment.

It's been the same in those institutions for years.

Mohammed's conquest and jihadist writings are well documented. Only liberal muslims who are dragging their way into modernity kicking and screaming think that Mohammed was James Joyce when he wrote those passages.

[admiralsnackbar]

I wont argue that.

But islamic architecture has appeared in Catholic churches in the New world. Does that mean that they sanction islam?

No, just that the Spaniards who traveled to the New World grew up amidst Byzantine architecture appropriated it as their own. At the same time, they didn't put the Alahmbra it on the Peso because they considered it such a flattering representation of their culture. The Saudis, on the other hand, DID put the WTC minaret on the back of their currency.

[Ignignokt]

lol what?

Illustrating absurdity.

Too high concept for UTSA.

can't even get lolwut? right.

[admiralsnackbar]

It's been the same in those institutions for years.

Mohammed's conquest and jihadist writings are well documented. Only liberal muslims who are dragging their way into modernity kicking and screaming think that Mohammed was James Joyce when he wrote those passages.

And yet the majority of Muslims are still peaceful people. Curious. But it looks like we've come full circle without getting anywhere, so peace out. Enjoy the weekend.

[Ignignokt]

No, just that the Spaniards who traveled to the New World grew up amidst Byzantine architecture appropriated it as their own. At the same time, they didn't put the Alahmbra it on the Peso because they considered it such a flattering representation of their culture. The Saudis, on the other hand, DID put the WTC minaret on the back of their currency.

ALhambra is a bad ass piece of architecture, i'd do it.

[admiralsnackbar]

ALhambra is a bad ass piece of architecture, i'd do it.

They may have done it, to be honest -- I don't really know.

[Ignignokt]

And yet the majority of Muslims are still peaceful people. Curious. But it looks like we've come full circle without getting anywhere, so peace out. Enjoy the weekend.

You can live a comfortable peaceful lifestyle and still condone injustice.

[admiralsnackbar]

You can live a comfortable peaceful lifestyle and still condone injustice.

I know... we do it all the time :lol

[Wild Cobra]

I wonder if the plans to build the gay bar next door will happen. After-all, the Muslims are so tolerant, they should appreciate that. Right?

[admiralsnackbar]

I wonder if the plans to build the gay bar next door will happen. After-all, the Muslims are so tolerant, they should appreciate that. Right?

Isn't that already there?

[DMX7]

Illustrating absurdity.

Too high concept for UTSA.

can't even get lolwut? right.

Your sick fantasies of killing whores and then peeing in their dead eye sockets are definitely too "high" a concept for poor little me. :lol

[Ignignokt]

Your sick fantasies of killing whores and then peeing in their dead eye sockets are definitely too "high" a concept for poor little me. :lol

alot of things are, don't be surprised.

[DMX7]

alot of things are, don't be surprised.

You mean like realizing "alot" is not a word? Nice.

[Ignignokt]

You mean like realizing "alot" is not a word? Nice.

I knew you'd run out of ideas and go directly for the spelling smack, Nice.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs and hate media know with certainty how to expose the ignorance and stupidity of USA, how to make a fool of the USA.

[DarrinS]

Repugs and hate media know with certainty how to expose the ignorance and stupidity of USA, how to make a fool of the USA.


Right-wing hate monger, Howard Dean


h2GzuAw46Os

[EmptyMan]

That was a good answer by Dean.

[boutons_deux]

There's a titty bar on that "sacred ground".

[George Gervin's Afro]

There's a titty bar on that "sacred ground".

according to dumbass jack that's the most sacred ground in US..but he's ok with a titty bar being there...:lmao

[boutons_deux]

Jack et al were, or maybe still are, Scouts-for-Breast-Exams:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbVifPkbYsk&feature=channel

[jack sommerset]

You guys don't have any problems with people who support muslim terrorist but you have a problem with some tits and ass. Faggots.

[fraga]

No you retard...they're saying they DON'T have a problem with tits and ass NEAR ground zero...and they DON'T have a problem with a mosque NEAR ground zero...

But the retards that HAVE a problem with that mosque...DON'T have a problem a problem with strip clubs NEAR ground zero...sheesh...

[jack sommerset]

Nope, they are faggots who hate America,tits and pussy. They like ass.

[spursncowboys]

I knew you'd run out of ideas and go directly for the spelling smack, Nice.
He wouldn't have known it to not be a word if not for spell-check. But UTSA did teach him what the squiggly lines under all his words were.

[boutons_deux]

It's not a mosque. It's a community center with pool, gym, meeting rooms, and a prayer room, just like the Muslim prayer room in the Pentagon.

The same old shit:

Being against dubya and Iraq bullshit was traitorous, was being anti-American.

Being for a Muslim community center is supporting terrorists.

Eat this, "Christians", being against Phelps family means being against all of Christianity.